Salesmen, When You're Not in a Hurry

These days, it can seem like there are two types of people: cultists and people being recruited to join cults.

Fortunately, as Miss Manners reminds us, the etiquette rule concerning answering when spoken to does not constitute an ironclad contract for a prolonged engagement:

Know, first, that etiquette does not require you to engage with them endlessly. These people are counting on you knowing that in most situations, it is rude not to answer when spoken to -- and on you not wanting to be rude. They are further counting on your either not recognizing their own rudeness in pressing the conversation or your not knowing how to get away.

This line of reasoning culminates in the all-purpose escape clause: Thank you, I'm not interested, which Judith Martin amusingly suggests can be used even in reply to such apocalyptic-sounding attempts to induce unearned guilt as, Don't you care about the future of our planet?

All I can add is that, oftentimes, proselytizers and other salesmen set up stands, such as within or outside commercial establishments. A long time ago, before my spine had calcified, these used to fill me with dread, especially if I saw that they were unavoidable.

No more.

Now, I see them as alert beacons that remind me that I am busy man. The one thing better than having to break off an unwanted engagement is being able to preempt one, and spotting a salesman in advance is great for this purpose. If I can't simply bypass the stand, I can be ready to assume a brisk pace, smile, and say, Thanks, but I'm in a hurry.

Ideally, the vendor/fund-raiser/proselytizer will festoon the stand with signage announcing the product or cause. I always take notice and on some occasions even take an interest. But if I can't tell what it is on sight, I am always too hurried to delve into why someone is taking such pains to spend any amount of my irreplaceable time.

-- CAV

When You've Lost The Washington Examiner...

My title is partly in jest: Despite being a conservative outlet, the Examiner has pleasantly surprised me more than once by being critical of Donald Trump, as it has this morning.

There, Dan Hannan begins a piece titled "Donald Trump Is Losing His Mind" with the following question:

Imagine it was someone other than President Donald Trump. Suppose a different leader were posting deranged rants in the small hours, insulting the spiritual leader of 1.3 billion Catholics, threatening entire civilizations with annihilation, and comparing himself to God. What would be the reaction? [bold added]

Hannan gives the correct answer and contrasts it to what each party is doing today, en route to arguing that Trump is losing what little self-control he had to begin with.

It's the kind of question whose absence I have long wondered about, given that it could have and should have been applied long ago to other aspects of Trump's fitness for office, such as his ignorance, lack of intelligence, and dishonesty. Hannan does at least open the door for exactly that later on:

What chess move, after all, requires picking a quarrel with the pope? The only conceivable answer might be that Trump is engaging in prestidigitation, fabricating a row to distract from something worse. What, though, could be worse? Is he worried that voters will suddenly wake up to the ways in which he and his associates have been enriching themselves in office? That there will be a belated interest in the favors sought from foreign governments, the digital currency boondoggles, the consultants offering access for cash, and the acceptance of a private jet from a Gulf state? Or does he fret about the fate of his Hungarian ally, Viktor Orban, hammered by voters last week after rising concerns about his autocratic style and the enrichment of his cronies? [bold added]

Good, and more of that please. Part of why nobody is asking such questions lies within the preceding paragraph:

Even now, a residual MAGA base will cheer the president unconditionally. At an event in Texas last week, I made a slighting reference to Trump's tendency to insult U.S. allies. Afterward, a perfectly charming couple spoke to me in a succession of MAGA clichés, like online Russian bots made flesh: "He's playing chess while you're playing checkers," "He's smarter than his critics," "Where do you get your news from, the New York Times?" I can't help noticing, though, that such people are fewer than they were a year ago. [bold added]

Knowing my fair share of people who, before Trump came along, would have been ... circumspect ... about openly espousing beliefs they should be embarrassed to hold at all, I wouldn't say that there are fewer such people. Rather, Trump's very public disintegration will gradually make more and more people realize how foolish they look standing by the dumpster fire they worship.

Perhaps such a cowing of the base is what America will need for each party to become less frightened of doing the sane thing, given how timid politicians are.

There is risk: J.D. Vance is waiting in the wings, and the Democrats are no more sane than they once were. The immediate future is not great.

I also see nobody on the horizon from either party capable of being nominated, winning the general, and governing well. Our best hope is for the Trump Presidency to go down as a high water mark of nuttiness and our nation to muddle through long enough for the culture to improve. But Trump has already severely reduced the likelihood of even that scenario.

-- CAV

IEEPA Loot Refund Update

The good news is that the Trump Administration is beginning to pay back (with interest) the $166 billion-plus it illegally took from Americans in import taxes under IEEPA -- a statute that doesn't even mention tariffs, and is intended to help the Chief Executive act quickly and decisively in real emergencies, anyway.

The bad news is that this is a bureaucratic process to begin with, and even if the President weren't opposed to returning the money, the process comes with real challenges:

The trade court's order appeared to set off a scramble among federal customs officials to put together a digital process for handling a crush of requests, according to legal filings. Those filings also revealed the technical challenges that the Trump administration faced in trying to return the money.

Among the many obstacles, the Trump administration said it had to stand up an entirely new system that could process refunds in bulk and disentangle illegal tariffs from legal ones on those same goods. At first, the government didn't even have a way to deposit money directly into the bank accounts of most importers, customs officials said.

As a result, the refund system that debuted on Monday, known as CAPE, can only process imports only at a certain point of the duty-paying process. That covers about 63 percent of import entries subject to IEEPA tariffs, the government previously said, though it plans to expand the system soon. In its prior public guidance, customs said it expected it would take 60 to 90 days to issue a refund once it accepts an importer's filing.

Katie Hilferty, who oversees the trade practice at the law firm Morgan Lewis, described the refund process as novel and complex, adding that she would be "pleasantly surprised" if refunds were paid as quickly as the government said. [bold added]

I hope some ace reporter remembers this the next time Trump makes one of his trademark, outlandish claims to have already solved/be able to solve/about to solve some big, long-running problem IMMEDIATELY or within two weeks.

Why can't he clean up his own messes that fast? (Trumpists, that is what is called a rhetorical question.)

-- CAV

Good Riddance, Autostart?

Issues and Insights reports that the Trump EPA is eliminating government "encouragement" of automakers to implement "autostart." That is, there will no longer be a tax credit for manufacturers who include that functionality in their products.

Good!

Autostart -- which kills and restarts your engine instead of letting it idle at traffic stops -- is a function that about two-thirds of new cars have in America. It's yet another annoyance rammed down our throats by the nanny state in the name of fighting the "climate crisis," and I turn it off every time I drive my wife's car. I also have no plans to replace my twelve-year old car any time soon in part because it doesn't do that at all.

(I also dislike cars that attempt to drive for you in the name of safety, but that's a post, perhaps, for another day.)

As the article indicates, most drivers are with me in finding the function annoying, but don't take their word for it: There's a healthy market out there for hardware that can bypass autostart altogether.

To its credit, the Trump Administration isn't making it illegal for car makers to put autostart in their cars, nor should it do so. (It can aid fuel economy in places that aren't so hot you need air conditioning almost year-round.) Again, it's just removing the Obama-era tax credit.

As usual when this Administration does something like this, I wonder how easy it will be for the next Democrat to undo the change, especially since, as it seems , it's just a regulatory change, like the repeal of the endangerment finding.

Maybe I should look for a newer car some time during the next couple of years...

-- CAV

Blog Roundup

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. "The Term 'State Capitalism' Wrongly Equates Freedom With Dictatorship," by Sam Weaver (New Ideal):

Although people today mainly associate fascism with racism and nationalism, [Ayn] Rand's point is that there is also a characteristically fascist type of control over the economy. In spite of still calling themselves "communist," the Chinese government exercises this same type of fascist control over many of its officially private businesses. And Trump's use of tariffs and regulation to control American businesses are an ominous step in America's journey toward the same destination.

1450 words/5 minutes

2. "How Do You Validate Aspirational Thoughts?," by Jean Moroney (Thinking Directions):

If you believe the aspirational idea is true, it's motivating to repeat it as an affirmation each day. Consciously reminding yourself of the belief refreshes your desire for the end and your confidence that you can take the necessary steps to reach it. By bringing the aspirational end to the forefront of awareness, you also see the opportunities for moving toward it -- today -- even if it is a long-range goal.

On the other hand, if you don't believe it's true, focusing on the aspirational thought will trigger objections and discouragement. And maybe frustration if you've been working toward it and failing, or guilt if you set a goal but haven't put in the effort. That will kill your interest in even thinking about the end.

2200 words/8 minutes

3. "How About a Genuine America-First Policy?," by Peter Schwartz (PeterSchwartz.com):

The movement Trump launched claims that his policies will "make America great again." Here, too, there is a prior question that demands an answer: What made America great in the first place? And it's the same answer: freedom.

America's exceptionalism rested on the premise that each individual has rights, and that the task of government is not to rule him but to protect those rights, by leaving him free. In the 18th century, a world dominated by despotic monarchies, this was a radical view. America was founded not simply on the idea that the people ought to elect their government representatives, but on the more fundamental idea that the individual has inalienable rights -- rights that may not be violated even by the wishes of a majority.

780 words/3 minutes

4. "What If Robots Take All the Jobs?," by Harry Binswanger (Value for Value):

Even with science-fictional super-robots, there will still be money changing hands and a price-system, just as now. You will still be paid for working -- in the field of your comparative advantage.

New kinds of jobs will appear, as they always have when technology advances. Ironically, most of the jobs people are afraid of losing -- such as programming jobs or truck-driving jobs -- were themselves created by technological advances. There used to be an American saying: "Adapt or die." Having the same kind of job as your father and grandfather did is not the American dream.

What new types of job will be created? I can no more project that than a man in 1956 could have projected that today there would be jobs in something called "social media"; or that money can be made by driving for Uber and by renting out living space through AirBnB.

1100 words/4 minutes

-- CAV

Free vs. Friction

Suazanne Lucas makes short work of explaining why free is quite often the wrong price for a promotional campaign, not to mention many other things:

The Mets made a nice gesture to compensate for the schedule change, but it didn't benefit the right people. The right people are the ones who want to come. Because the free tickets were quickly claimed, we can assume that many people would have liked to attend but couldn't because those who didn't value the tickets snapped them up, just in case.

This isn't unique to baseball games. I provide online training to HR professionals. When it's free, I can count on a 50 percent attendance rate. When people have to pay to attend, the attendance rate is 90 percent or higher.

The same goes for selling stuff on Facebook Marketplace. If I post something for free, I'll get numerous responses, and some people will go so far as to set a time to come pick up the object, only to no-show.

What you always want in transactions is a little bit of "friction" to attract the people who are truly interested in whatever you have to sell. Even if that thing is a job. [bold added]

The Facebook Marketplace example is interesting. My wife and I were considering selling off some old furniture recently, after having found nicer pieces for not much on a similar platform -- but we decided to donate instead because the price we'd likely fetch wouldn't justify the hassle of having to store the items at home and deal with the logistics of talking to potential buyers and then arranging to have the furniture moved.

I can only imagine having to deal with the deluge of people who'd take the items for free. That hassle is what the charity is relieving us of, and is quite an acceptable payment for getting the old furniture off our hands.

-- CAV

Called a Bluff: On Purpose or Not?

One cannot read any media without questioning every line, and the latest case in point is a piece in the New York Post that proclaims the President "brilliant" for "call[ing] Iran's bluff" with a blockade of the Straight of Hormuz.

In isolation, one could well imagine such a blockade being a useful and powerful tool to further cripple the Iranian regime, and being brilliant for turning its best weapon against it.

Not only that, the move may play out exactly that way. Despite concerns that ships were violating the blockade, for example, a Chinese ship has indeed turned around after appearing to flout it yesterday.

But in context?

Doing something this deliberate would be way out of character for Donald Trump who, to put it charitably, prefers to operate by the seat of his pants, and usually has the sole strategic interest of lining his own pockets. Remember that he was talking hours or days before of collecting tolls from the Strait with Iran as a partner. (!)

So much for the Post's contention that Trump is "honoring an American commitment to freedom of the seas that goes back to President Thomas Jefferson."

Since when has this clown honored any American commitment, including those he himself has made? Our NAFTA USMCA trading partners might like to have a word with you about that.

And then there's the further context of Trump's ever-changing war aims. As of right now, the Administration is hoping to accelerate the fall of strike a "Grand Bargain" with the Mullahs, as if they are fellow mafiosi, instead of ideologues who might be interested in surviving to maim and murder infidels another day.

We may yet end up having to give Trump grudging credit for ridding us of the Mullahs, but he is doing a great job of getting in the way of that, and such an outcome is not guaranteed despite our obscene military advantage over Iran.

A powerful tool still has to be wielded, and preferably by someone who knows what he is doing.

-- CAV